Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendo mulcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Unsourced, no verifiability, no claim of notability. Black Kite 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mendo mulcher

Mendo mulcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No reliable independent sources provide any material on this cannabis grinder, implying that it will not be possible to write an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Non-notable, un-sourcable. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 05:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification My problem with sources isn't just that the article contains no reliable independent sources, but that my Google search found nothing other than cannabis user forums and online stores - in other words, only unreliable sources and trivial mentions. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per lack of independent sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note Lack of sources is a cause for tagging and improvement, not deletion in most cases. The problem here is the article is clearly promotional. Rotovia (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, fails notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite This article would be fine with a few changes. archanamiya · talk 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question How would we go about that, bearing in mind wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability? If there are sources you know about, please let us know. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't a rewrite issue, there simply isn't any notability. Interesting product, though. Rotovia (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Written by an editor with a single purpose account, unsourced, reads like an advertisement. B.Wind (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.